Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Now is the time for all good men... Message-ID: <704@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 22:34:54 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.704 Posted: Wed Jun 19 22:34:54 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 15:21:12 EDT Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 88 I thought you were gonna post everything en espanol, son. Does the fact that people can still read it bother you, or what? [> = jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos), Message-ID: <1054@peora.UUCP>] >What you are trying to do is effect social change by changing the language. >The goal here, regardless of what you may say, is not to "eliminate" >biases from the language; because the semantics of the language are >externally imposed. When I read "Now is the time for all good men to >come to the aid of their country" (and we'll look at that in a few >minutes in more detail), I read "people" where you read "male-type-people". >It would appear the bias is yours, for seeing "males" where the words say >"men". OK, so in "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country", "men" means "people". Now, do you mind if I accompany you to the men's room? "Aw, come on", you say, "everybody knows that 'men' means 'male people' there." Great. So now you've got this word that sometimes means "people" and sometimes means "male people". And how do tell when it means one over the other? Well, you just know. So now you can only convey your meaning to people who *already know* your meaning. Well, son, what the Hell good is that? If you've got a word that always and only means "people" (namely "people"), why the hell don't you use it? 'Cause you're stubborn, that's why. There's *no* other reason for using an even remotely potentially ambiguous word when you've got one that's crystal clear. When you're not talking about male people, don't talk about male people. >And, as I pointed out, the method you are using is an old one. You will >recall that George Orwell pointed out this method-of-totalitarianism >as being a prevalent one in 1948, in his book _1984_. One of the ways to >effect a major ideological change is to undermine people's sense of >stability. This is the technique used in "brainwashing"; this is also the >technique you are proposing here. The technique I'm proposing here is "accuracy", not "brainwashing". And it isn't old enough...yet. >But I say "advocate in some sense," equally ironically, largely as a result >of the idea behind the phrase in the subject line of this message. Prior to >the revival of draft registration, I was a considerably stronger advocate of >the principles of feminism than I am now. However, I noted with an extreme >degree of irritation how many congressMEN made the blatantly sexist remark, >"obviously no one feels women should have to go into combat;" and even more, >I noted that no women I knew challenged this statement. They generally >agreed with it. Well, you didn't meet me soon enough. If there has to be a draft I don't see any reason why women shouldn't participate in it. And if people have to go into combat, *and* if women can meet the physical demands, I'm not at all sure why women are exempt from it. >If you are only going to advocate a principle as long as it does not >remotely endanger you, as long as it only gives you good things, then I >will not support you at all. I don't, and I wouldn't support anyone who did either. >I have come to perceive that, to a large >number of people, the principles of the feminist movement are simply a means >of advancing women's already privileged state in the world, by eliminating >some of the remaining tradeoffs. "already privileged state". Right. I'll mention that to the rape/wife abuse victims. And to the financially well-off waitresses and secretaries. And to women who spend all day doing that "privileged" "women's work", only to be told to do some more of it by their husbands who "have worked all day" and couldn't trouble themselves to do a damn other thing. *Everybody* knows how priviliged they all are. That must be why they get so much respect. Most of the rest is about poetry. I'll worry about legal books and religious texts that, by defintion, try to influence the way people think about each other. You worry about poetry. >I wish I had time to write more, but the lunch hour is over. Thank goddess for short lunch hours. We filled our disk structures here. >PS - I'm not your son. P.S. I'm not a man. >Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos -- --JB All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.